Palin did not abuse her executive power in Alaska and was horrified at her predecessor's pardons, and other corrupt policies. She signed legislation that limited the governor's power to grant clemency and pardons soon after she was elected.
In his final day as governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski issued a very controversial pardon to a Bellingham, Wash.-based engineering company for a 1999 criminally negligent homicide conviction. Appalled by this, newly-elected Governor Sarah Palin pushed for a new state law that limited the Alaskan governor’s power to grant clemency. This law was unanimously passed by the state legislature.
Compassionate conservatives and commonsense conservatives. There is a HUGE difference.
In the quoted 2007 KTUU article from Be John Galt it says this about the "cleanup" Palin had to do after Murkowski:
While legislators will not specifically acknowledge that they are cleaning up after Murkowski, there is a sense that the former governor's legacy is being rolled back. Palin has reversed his appointments, canceled his contracts and is currently selling his jet.
Palin immediately got to work cleaning up after a terrible governor did a disservice to Alaska. Huckabee did that kind of damage to his state; Palin cleaned hers up so tragic events like yesterday's shooting would not happen.
If Clemmons is found responsible, "it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State," Huckabee said.
He added that Clemmons' release from prison had been reviewed and approved by the Arkansas parole board.
Completely evading blame, and not owning up to his mistake that cost four people their lives.
Huckabee had a history of pardoning criminals recklessly - and he would not give reasons or explanations for them, which infuriated prosecutors. This is something I didn't know about him that I found out by reading today's stories. This is surely a huge red flag that indicates he's ineligible to be our President.
In my opinion, Huckabee played a central role in these murders. If he had not granted clemency to this man, those four police officers would still be alive today and Clemmons would still be in prison where he belongs.
From her Facebook page. I totally agree. With a year of out of control spending and proposing the most insanely expensive Healthcare bill ever - they all of sudden think about costs when it comes to military and our security?? Yeah right.
I have opinions on Obama's Afghanistan strategy, too. Like how he never says the word "victory" and he says "I" will finish the job. But that's for another blog I suppose.
Really? A tax on national defense? I hear liberal Congressional proposals and I, like most Americans, wonder if they’re serious. We’re going to put a price tag on security?
With Congress and President Obama spending money on everything at breakneck speed, it’s interesting that they are only now getting nervous about spending – but only when it comes to providing the necessary funds to complete our mission in Afghanistan. They don’t need a new “war tax” to fund a strategy for victory in the war zone. They simply need to prioritize our money appropriately.
I find it telling that the Pelosi-Reid Congress is only cost-conscious when it comes to our national defense. Scary. Nonsensical. Unacceptable.
As I mentioned previously, the bookstore where Palin is going to hold her 12/4 signing opted not to have wristbands and instead sold a limited amount of tickets. The tickets are now sold out. If you were planning to arrive on that day and purchase a ticket, unfortunately you will not be able to.
Please see the press release at the Legacy Books website.
That's great! I don't know if it has been circulated. I just saw it on a great blog that was linked at The Corner a few times and I've read occasionally called "Shout First, Ask Questions Later." You should check it out!
Hellcare, Obamacare, whatever you want to call it we need to stop it. Palin addresses the upcoming vote in a Facebook posting. Some RINOs said that Palin is "sucking the air out of the room" for other Republicans to shine and "taking the spotlight away from the healthcare debate." Yeah right. Palin is doing more than any other Republican to get this horrific bill stopped and using her current media tour to discuss it and other pressing problems. To hell with the rest of the "Republicans" who say this kind of drivel.
The Senate is set to vote Saturday night, right before the holiday, on a motion to proceed on its latest health care government take-over bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing for yet another weekend vote (commonplace now for the party of “transparency”) because he knows that the American people will be none too happy about the Democrats’ proposal the longer they have to look it over.
A vote against the Democrats’ motion will help stop Obamacare before it gets any closer to becoming a reality. While this Saturday night vote might seem like a procedural matter, at the end of the day a vote against Senator Reid’s motion is a vote against massive new government spending and a take-over of 1/6th of the U.S. economy; it’s a vote against billions in tax increases and penalties; it’s a vote against federal funding of abortion; and it’s a vote against ignoring responsible tort reform.
And in case you hadn’t heard – just a reminder that you’ll start paying higher taxes to fund this scheme in 2010 even though it doesn’t start up until 2014. Only in Washington does that make any sense. Among the provisions in this bill will be a $2500 cap on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). The IRS allows families with special needs children to use FSAs to cover educational expenses. This new $2500 cap will hit these families especially hard and cost them hundreds of dollars in new taxes every year.
Contact your senators and tell them to vote against the motion to proceed tomorrow night. The American people don’t support this – we support the commonsense solutions that have been proposed, but totally ignored by (at this point) some out-of-control Washington politicians. Let’s put a stop to Obamacare before it goes any further.
My preordered copy arrived yesterday and I started reading it last night. I'll post a review when I finish it.
I can't help but wonder while I'm reading is what John McCain must be thinking - not in the context of backstabbing aides, but in the campaign as a whole. Reading this book, you get to see the real Sarah who is of course an amazing person. The family photos in the book could be your family, my family, anybody's family. She is a regular American citizen who worked hard to be elected governor without all the networking, finances and endorsements of uber rich elite career politicians. And yet McCain didn't seem to appreciate her. Somewhere there was greatness in him to choose Palin but then he went soft on fighting Obama during the campaign and didn't try hard enough to make sure Obama didn't win. Now we have someone in the White House who hates the America that Palin embodies so much. I just don't get it.
And that's not how Palin wrote the book, from that perspective - not at all. That's just what *I* was thinking while reading it. It's a great shame that she isn't our VP right now. Reading the book you know she is exactly the person we need. We already knew that, but reading Going Rogue just reinforces it. My heart is broken that McCain/Palin didn't win. But the silver lining is that hopefully it paved the way for her to run for President, without having the shackles of being only the VP, and win!
Here is some of Sarah's interview with Hannity last night. It was phenomenal. I wish I could link the whole thing. This woman is an inspiration.
Can you name one person in the Republican party who will say what she's saying here? Can you name one person who will stand up for what's right and unequivocally say what she/he believes without apology or without being phony about it? For everyone saying Mitt Romney is the "real candidate" do you think he would do an interview like this? She is the one true conservative voice out there and the American people aren't going to let her go no matter what the corrupt media and elite RINOs say.
Palin answered every question being very informed, no "uhhhh," no teleprompter, no prefacing every sentence with "look," or "let me be clear." She answered each question strong in her convictions and confident. She is an American Patriot. What a change from who we have in the White House today.
In a vitrol-laced article that admonishes Palin for even existing, Lisa de Moraes proves Palin was exactly right when she discussed the Couric question "what do you read" on Oprah. Palin said that anything she answered would have been perceived or scewed as negative. She was absolutely right because while she was on Hannity, she said that she reads Newsmax, the Frontiersman and the Wall Street Journal. Here is what Lisa de Moraes said about that in her hate-filled article:
Newsmax is an online news site that says it is "the #1 conservative news agency online." The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman is a Wasilla-based newspaper published Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays by Wick Communications and is distributed to the Matanuska-Susitna Valley in Alaska. The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp., which also owns Fox News Channel.
Her description of those publications is absolutely dripping with venom. She tries to discredit each one to somehow "prove" that Palin is stupid by choosing those to read.
Couric's question was a complete "gotcha" question, designed to make her look like a fool and trap her no matter what her response was. If she answered that she read X, Y, Z, the corrupt media would find reasons to discredit each one. If she doesn't list any specifically then she gets hammered for "not reading anything."
I personally liked Palin's answer the first time, "I read all of them." Palin is a lot smarter than Couric and basically said that she wasn't going to play her stupid gotcha game. Katie Couric is an idiot who doesn't deserve to be in the same room as Palin.
It's ironic that the corrupt media focuses so much on this idiotic question, what Palin reads, when they couldn't be bothered to investigate who Obama has been friends with for the past 20 years, who his mentors are and the books he did not write.
ETA: I wanted to add that Legacy Books is a shopping center right off the Tollway called The Shops at Legacy. This is a very crowded "town square" type shopping center and there is very limited parking! There's a parking garage next to the bookstore and several garages across the street. However, they fill up very fast on a daily basis. So on December 4, of course they will be completely filled up by 6am. I suggest carpooling if you can! You will want to avoid crossing Legacy Drive by foot as it is very busy, especially in the morning during rush hour. Please be careful! If you're planning on attending and have questions please don't hesitate to ask me anything because I live and work very close to this shopping center.
As of yesterday Legacy Books did not have any information on their website about Palin's book signing on December 4. They have since updated their front page with details on the book signing. I had emailed them a week ago asking for details and just received a generic "we're still figuring out the details." They seem to be a bit overwhelmed with the frenzy surrounding Palin's tour.
I went to the Legacy Books store today and discussed the signing with the employees. Here are some details I received from them that are not on the website.
***Customers will buy a ticket to stand in line. There are a limited number of tickets available. They didn't say how many there were, only "a limited amount."
***There will NOT be wristbands at this signing. It is a first-come first serve line and the line cannot start forming any earlier than 6:00am.
***When you purchase a ticket, you will not receive a book right then. You will receive the book as soon as you get to the front of the line and Palin signs it. This of course means that you cannot read your book until December 4, so don't expect to walk out with a book when you buy the ticket prior to December 4.
***On the day of the signing, if the line is too long for you to make it in time for Palin to sign the book, you can exchange your ticket for an un-signed book right then. If want a refund they could also do that for you.
***There is no publicity for this event. There are no signs, no stacks of books, no giant pictures of Palin - the reason is that word is traveling so fast and already thousands of people are expected. They don't need publicity at all for this event. They're already worried some people will not be fit in to the signing.
When I was there this afternoon, there were 3 customers ahead of me who purchased tickets to the book signing. This is Palin's only stop in North Texas and they are estimating thousands will attend. Please buy your ticket as soon as possible! I have a feeling they will run out of tickets very, very soon.
This article shows how excited Michigan is for their chance to see Palin. The author also lumps in Mike Huckabee's book tour but I think she only did that in an attempt to dampen the overly excited mood for Palin - what else do you expect from corrupt media I suppose.
If you read all the way down you'll see how one man says he likes Huckabee more than Palin but his wife chimes in and says they just want Obama out of the White House. I think she likes Palin more. ;)
Nearly every person at the Barnes and Noble Booksellers store in Kentwood this evening was buying a copy of Sarah Palin’s memoir “Going Rogue.”
Betty Ward, 73, of Coldwater, had two – one for herself and one for her sister. She had already been to a book signing down the road at the Schuler Books in Kentwood, getting two signatures from former Arkansas Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on his book “A Simple Christmas.”
“He’s about as honest as they come,” Ward said. “And she’s just another person like me. I would like to see her run for president.”
Ward made the two-hour drive to Coldwater for the books and was staying overnight in the hopes of getting Palin to autograph her copies.
The Woodland Mall, where Palin will begin her book tour Wednesday, was scheduled to close at 9 p.m. and store officials were expecting long lines when the mall doors reopened at 5:30 a.m. The book store was set to begin handing out wrist bands to people wanting Palin’s signature at 7 a.m. Wednesday.
“I’m going to try and come back and see if I can get my copy signed,” said Cheryl Lusby, 55, of Grand Rapids. “She’s such a strong and smart woman. And it takes a lot of guts to do what she’s done.”
Bert and Marianne Vandentop, of Grand Rapids, were two of the 300 people waiting in line today to see Huckabee. They didn’t think they would make it to the Palin event.
"We like her, but we like Mike better," said Bert Vandentop, 76. "Maybe they should team up."
Marianne Vandentop added, "We just want Obama out of the White House. The sooner the better."
The line at Schuler's snaked throughout the store and cashiers expected that Huckabee would sign 600 before the hour-long event was through. Huckabee is in the midst of a 64-city tour to promote his book of short stores.
Kent County was a good spot for both Republicans. Huckabee finished a respectable third in the presidential primary and in the general election, John McCain and Palin barely lost by a 48.9% to 49.4% margin, while the state as a whole went for Barack Obama for president by a 57%-41% margin.
Palin was a guest on Rush Limbaugh's show today and it was a completely different kind of interview than with Oprah. Rush's was all about policy and what makes Sarah tick. Oprah's was all about emotions, feelings and looking backward to the McCain campaign. Rush focused a bit more on the future.
RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?
GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It's not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It's more of a business -- and, no, I'm not a part of that. So if they're going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I'll never be a part of that. But hopefully we're going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we're going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we're going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.
RUSH: All right, independents, slash, third party. A lot of people -- mistakenly, in my view -- are looking at New York-23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that's not a good example because there was no primary there. As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat. Had there been a primary, New York-23 would not have been constituted as it was. So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can't be brought around?
GOV. PALIN: You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it's a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America's political system. And we are a two-party system. Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don't think America is ready for that. I think that it is... Granted it's quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that's what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I'm not an obsessive panther, I understand why people -- good people like my own husband -- refuse to register in a party. Todd's not a Republican and yet he's got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. But in answer to your question, I don't think that the third party movement will be what's necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals.
[------]
RUSH: Vice President Biden chided you, saying, "It's a little bit more complicated," Governor Palin, than "Drill, Baby, Drill," which is one of your chapter titles. What's complicated about drilling for oil?
GOV. PALIN: Exactly. What is complicated about tapping into abundant, safe domestic supplies that could provide stability for our country and security for our country? I know Alaska has billions of barrels of oil underfoot, and we have the natural gas that's waiting to be tapped, too; and other states do, too. It's not that complicated. It's political, and that's what is the shame in this, is that for political reasons we're not allowing to tap these domestic supplies.
RUSH: What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?
GOV. PALIN: Well, we don't really know, do we, what's in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon but we have no idea of costs. We don't know how many will be insured. We're waiting to hear that. We don't know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that's sitting over on the Senate side. We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment. There are so many questions unanswered. I don't like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care -- which essentially this is -- and control one-sixth of our economy. Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we'll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package. So lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.
I was listening to Mike Gallagher this morning on the way to work and it seemed like his overall impression of the Oprah interview was that it wasn't fair and Oprah was biased and sexist. I disagree. I know that Oprah is biased, all corrupt media is biased. I wasn't surprised at any of the biased elements of the interview; I was actually expecting it to be much more biased.
The question that Gallagher didn't like was the one where Oprah asked how would Palin have handled five kids, a husband, and being the VP all at the same time. Let me explain how I perceived that: That question was asked a lot during the campaign and it is an extremely sexist anti-progressive question to ask any woman at any time. Because the corrupt media and the McCain advisors refused to let Palin answer it truthfully during the campaign, I think Oprah asked it to allow Palin to respond in her own words. I don't believe for a millisecond that Oprah actually believes that Palin, or a woman with five kids, could not be VP. Just because an interviewer asks a question doesn't mean that she/he agrees with it. I know she could have phrased it differently such as "There was a ridiculous question going around during the campaign about how you could handle taking care of your family and also be VP, how would you like to respond to that now?" That would have made Oprah look more female-empowering or whatever you want to call it. But the fact that she prefaced it with "this question never gets asked to the men" means she is cognizant of the inherent sexism in it and wanted to give Palin the opportunity to explain how she feels in her own words. I didn't perceive it as a "challenge" in any way, or that Oprah was accusing her of not being able to handle it and forcing Palin to prove that she could. I absolutely did not get that perception at all.
Oprah is a woman who chose not to have a husband or children and decided to focus all her energy on her career. She kind of represents the "old school" feminist thinking that preaches that you can't have it all, you can either have a career or have a family and that's it. Palin obviously crashed through that limited thinking and said she could have it all so she set her mind to it and did it. I think Oprah is a bit intmidated by it. Heck, I think a lot of people are intimidated by it. Palin herself said in the interview she's kind of an anomaly with her family and career situation. I think she's inspirational and is ushering in a new kind of "feminism." I think Oprah and others like her are opening their eyes to how damaging old school feminism is to women.
I thought it was a great interview. I've watched Oprah many, many times and I know how she interviews her guests. I thought that Oprah was respectful, professional and didn't ask any "gotcha" questions a la "The Perky One" (I just love that nickname that Palin gave Katie Couric by the way).
I've seen Oprah more relaxed and casual in other interviews. She wasn't this time but I don't think it was due to any dislike of Palin, quite the contrary. I think Oprah was a little intimidated by Palin's amazing presence in the room, her confidence, her intellect, her family, her accomplishments and her life in general. Oprah was the one who didn't want to get flustered, I thought. In other words, I don't think Oprah was motivated by any political agenda at all. That's my opinion.
Palin on running in 2012: She said that it's not on her radar. Not ruling it out, but not discussing it now. I expected that. She said she's focused on 2010.
Palin on Levi: She was a lot more friendly than I would have been that's for sure! She was so welcoming, warm and polite toward him and I thought she had the perfect response to those questions. The Palin family is offering Levi love, acceptance and a chance to be a father to his beautiful boy and he's not accepting and is instead going down a dangerous "unhealthy" path. She dismissed his silly smear campaign lies and wouldn't give him a smidge of legitimacy, which I thought was perfect. She also gave him an "out" which was she said that his handlers were the ones guiding him down this bad path and he shouldn't listen to them. I think he's scumbag on his own without his handlers but that's my opinion.
Palin on the Couric interview: She said it wasn't a seminal point in the campaign. Couric was pushing a partisan agenda and purposely asked gotcha questions. She called Couric "The Perky One" which was hilarious! She dismissed Couric a journalist, basically saying that she wasn't fair or professional. I am so glad she said that out in the open. I can't wait to read this portion of the book. I think Couric will have to take a few "mental health" days to deal with this smackdown.
There was a lot more and overall I thought it was great! I can't wait to see the rest of the interviews this week. I'm going to buy a copy of Going Rogue tomorrow at the bookstore where she's going to have her book signing in December (yipee!!) but I also have it on preorder from Walmart. Tomorrow is going to be a great day!
I found this at NRO's "Rogue" blog, which is a very good blog so far.
I know Palinmania has arrived with her Oprah appearance today and the book coming out tomorrow. I just wanted to pass this along because it is great news! It shows that we're not going to let the corrupt media pick our candidates anymore. More and more Republicans are supporting Palin and breaking away from the GOP RINO tendencies.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
By contrast, 74% of Republicans say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. Only 18% of Republican voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.
The findings in these two surveys highlight the political debate within the Republican Party. Party leaders worry that Palin is pushing the GOP too far to the right to win general elections by aligning herself with Tea Party voters frustrated with both parties in Washington and the big government policies they have produced.
Still, just 18% of Republicans - and 26% of voters nationwide - see Palin as a divisive force within the GOP.A plurality believes Palin is representative of a new direction for the Republican Party. That view is held by 57% of Republicans and 41% of all voters. A plurality of Democrats aren’t sure what to think of Palin’s role within the opposing party.
This time, she makes her public entrance as the headliner, not the pretty and vivacious warm-up act that brought bounce and backlash to the 2008 McCain presidential campaign.
As Sarah Palin re-emerges onto the national stage with a new book and a tour to promote it, the polarizing one-time vice presidential candidate gets to sell her story her way. Even the book's title, "Going Rogue," suggests that after delivering messages under the careful watch of Republican handlers a year ago, she's now calling her own shots as she travels the nation to set up what some say is a certain run for the White House in 2012.
Even as some on the left attack her credibility, others say that to dismiss her as a political flash in the pan would be folly. No other veep candidate in recent decades, they say, has generated such ongoing fascination.
"Sarah Palin may be the one rock star that the Republican Party has for the moment," says Larry Jacobs, the director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. He cites the intense demand for her at national fundraising events as "a symbol of her potency and potential as a presidential candidate."
While family foibles have thrust her into the nasty gossipy crosshairs, her embrace by the celebrity magazine set hasn't been all negative, he says.
"I think Sarah Palin is kind of a boundary-crosser," Mr. Jacobs says. "She has one hand in the world of politics and the other on the front pages of entertainment and variety magazines. And frankly, it's worked for her politically. She's been able to widen her message, and it's given her visibility that is extraordinary."
On Monday, Mrs. Palin's taped interview with talk-show and public-consciousness queen Oprah Winfrey will air, giving viewers a showbiz insight into her current mind-set. In promotional tapes released in advance of the show, Mrs. Palin opens up about her ill-fated interview with Katie Couric - she knew it was bad - and also welcomes prodigal near-son-in-law Levi Johnston to her Thanksgiving table.
The book tour starts this week, and I look forward to it! I'm most looking forward to meeting many of you, shaking your hands, and telling you,"Thanks for loving America." I'll give you a scoop here and tell you what's on the book's Dedication Page – it's dedicated to you – Patriots – who love the U.S.A. as much as I do.
Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released. They're now erroneously reporting on the book's contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards. We've heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, "fact checking" research! Imagine that – 11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to "fact check" what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing.
We'll keep setting the record straight, and we'll keep reminding some in the media that Americans are very tired of their non-objective reporting. A great, recent post that accomplishes this is a Conservatives4Palin post. It's got some nice fact checking included. As always, they did a great job holding some of the media accountable for spreading more misinformation and for making things up. You can read it here. Enjoy!
And I can't wait to see you! God bless the fight for freedom! Keep up the great work, Patriots who love this country.
It's nice to know where the NYT stands on feminism and female equality. According to them women should be grateful for being picked for a high-profile job based on their merits. Women should be grateful for having the opportunity and not "complain" or "whine" if they get treated like dirt by the people who chose them. Or, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with reasons to hate Palin.
How about this? Palin earned the right to be picked as a running mate, based on her experience and merits. She also has the right to fight back against the people who tried to destroy her career. Michiko Kakutani, the author of this NYT review, apparently thinks that as a woman, Palin should just sit in the corner with her hands folded in her lap and not say anything ever again.
Kakutani shocked that Palin considered being VP a natural progression to her career. Why? If Palin were a man, I guarantee she would be praising her confidence and assuredness. I seem to remember many, many, people doing that when Bill Clinton said he and others close to him knew would be president someday - even his nanny said it when he was a baby. Talk about elitism.
I was wondering if the NYT would review Going Rogue. Not only did they review it, they got their top liberal attack dog to do it. And all she accomplished was pushing more sexist, liberal lies about Palin. NYT is not progressive, it's regressive. Wake up.
Obama loves to use symbolism in his daily public life. I suppose it appeals to the idealogue in him, but it's almost creepy the way he acts like the world is a stage on which to interpret metaphors and symbols instead of being a leader of real people and solving real problems.
Take for instance today. It was announced that the 9/11 mastermind and other terrorists will be tried in a federal court civilian trial in New York City. This decision made by Obama shows a complete disregard for the massive loss of human life that happened right down the street from where the trial will take place. In fact, the courthouse was in the shadow of the World Trade Center towers, before the terrorists destroyed them and killed thousands of innocent Americans. He reduced the horrific acts of terror from being war crimes to simply "criminal acts." He's forcing the New Yorkers who are still reeling from this attack, to live alongside KSM while he defends himself against the atrocities he committed against them. The NYFD and NYPD will have to maintain security during the trial. Obama just forced them to them all to relive their personal hell each day the trial drags on.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a federal trial couldn't it be held anywhere like DC, Chicago, Seattle, anywhere? It didn't have to be in NYC. With this announcement, he's making a huge statement as to how he perceives the 9/11 attacks - no big deal to him at all. And that is symbolic. To him, who cares if it happened to the people of that city? He doesn't think they've suffered enough to warrant any backlash from the trial being held there.
This isn't the first time he's used symbolism to express his beliefs:
Uses of symbolism during the 2008 election campaign
--During the 2008 election campaign Obama stopped wearing his flag pin. The flag pin was the symbol of our unification after the 9/11 attacks and every politician had been wearing them daily. His break from the pin signaled that voting for him would be a change or an end to the way we had been handling terrorism policy-wise since the attacks took place. George W. Bush represented unity and strength against terror; Obama would represent something else, but certainly not a continuation of Bush's policies. His decision was also symbolic in the way he perceived the attacks: they are over and we should move on. Removing the pin symbolized that we should go back to the we were before the attacks took place and not live with them in mind daily.
--The bottom of Obama's shoes were photographed while he was on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The article states that it is an insult in the Arab world to show the bottom of your shoes to someone. Even though Israel doesn't necessarily share the custom, many felt insulted by the photo, which is exactly why Obama did it. He was insulting them in a subtle, symbolic way.
--He announced that he would scrap the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, giving in to a demand from Russia, on the 70th anniversary of Russia's invasion of Poland. Poland and the Czech Republic were occupied by the Soviet Union for 40 years and have since had a strenuous relationship with Russia. This announcement on the anniversary of the invasion was a clear symbol that Obama is interested in appeasing Russia and communist rule. He does not like individual freedom nor expressions of it.
This month, two more major uses of symbolism
--Obama made a "shout-out" and spoke in a jovial manner for approximately two minutes before discussing the Ft. Hood massacre for the first time. He had hours to prepare a speech, and everyone was breathless waiting to hear what he would say. At that time there were already 12 confirmed dead. He knew, without a doubt, that the entire nation was waiting to watch his speech. He gives a display of smiles, happiness and gives a "shout out" to Joe Medicine Crow who says won the Congressional Medal of Honor; however, he had not won the CMH. That is a military decoration awarded to someone in combat. Crow won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded to civilians. Two symbols there. One is that he undermined the CMH as some worthless, toss-away award when in fact it's the highest military decoration anyone in the military could ever receive and it's the highest honor to receive it. Obama shows that he has no respect for the award or the military by mistakenly saying that a civilian won it. Obama himself was the one who awarded Crow the PMF on August 12, 2009 - a mere three months ago - and he "mistakenly" confuses it with the CMH? Please. This was a deliberate diss.
But the big symbol here was that Obama had zero empathy, zero respect and zero care for the acts of war on the United States on US soil. He had no feelings whatsoever that 12 military servicemen and women were murdered on their own base by a terrorist. He displayed his leadership and caring by goofing off for two minutes and giving shout outs instead of giving the dead the solemnity they deserve. But that's the symbol - he really was showing you what he really believes by doing that. You get to take away the meaning yourself.
--On Veterans Day last Wednesday he announced that he would wait several more weeks to decide on whether or not he will send more troops to Afghanistan, igorning his General's recommendation and leaving the troops already there flapping in the wind. It was also reported that if he does send more, it will be a far less amount than McChrystal's request. This was done on Veterans Day, the day we honor those who have served and are serving in the military. This symbol shows that he despises the military.
Whenever someone brings it to his attention that he offended someone by his symbolic gesture, Obama feigns ignorance - "Oh no, I didn't mean that!" or "What does that say about you that you would think of something like that?" So they get reduced to conspiracy theories and crazy ideas. But you can't deny that he does employ this technique to convey his true beliefs, add salt to the wound or to belittle something that someone holds dear.
Going Rogue: An American Life by Sarah Palin Chapter Four; Section 8, pages 255-257
By the third week in September, a “Free Sarah” campaign was under way and the press at large was growing increasingly critical of the McCain camp’s decision to keep me, my family and friends back home, and my governor’s staff all bottled up. Meanwhile, the question of which news outlet would land the first interview was a big deal, as it always is with a major party candidate.
From the beginning, Nicolle [Wallace] pushed for Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News. The campaign’s general strategy involved coming out with a network anchor, someone they felt had treated John well on the trail thus far. My suggestion was that we be consistent with that strategy and start talking to outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. I really didn’t have a say in which press I was going to talk to, but for some reason Nicolle seemed compelled to get me on the Katie bandwagon.
“Katie really likes you,” she said to me one day. “she’s a working mom and admires you as a working mom. She has teenage daughter like you. She just relates to you,” Nicolle said. “believe me, I know her very well. I’ve worked with her.” Nicolle had left her gig at CBS just a few months earlier to hook up with the McCain campaign. I had to trust her experience, as she had dealt with national politics more than I had. But something always struck me as peculiar about the way she recalled her days in the White House, when she was speaking on behalf of President George W. Bush. She didn't have much to say that was positive about her former boss or the job in general. Whenever I wanted to give a shout-out to the White House’s homeland security efforts after 9/11, we were told we couldn’t do it. I didn’t know if that was Nicolle’s call.
Nicolle went on to explain that Katie really needed a career boost. “She just has such low self-esteem,” Nicolle said. She added that Katie was going through a tough time. “She just feels she can’t trust anybody.”
I was thinking, And this has to do with John McCain’s campaign how?
Nicolle said. “She wants you to like her.”
Hearing all that, I almost started to feel sorry for her. Katie had tried to make a bold move from lively morning gal to serious anchor, but the new assignment wasn’t going very well.
“You know what? We’ll schedule a segment with her,” Nicolle said. “If it doesn’t go well, if there’s no chemistry, we won’t do any others.”
Meanwhile, the media blackout continued. It got so bad that a couple of times I had a friend in Anchorage track down phone numbers for me, and then I snuck in calls to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and someone I thought was Larry Kudlow but turned out to be Neil Cavuto’s producer. I had a friend call Bill O’Reilly after I was inundated with supporters in Alaska asking why the campaign was “ignoring” his on-air requests for a McCain campaign interview. I had another friend scrambling to find Mark Levin’s number. Aboard the campaign plane I was within twenty-five feet of reporters for hours on end. Headquarters’ strategy was that I should not go to the back of the aircraft and talk to the press. At first this was subtle, but as the campaign wore on, Tracey or Tucker would call headquarters to request permission, and someone in DC would respond, “No! Absolutely not- block her if she tries to go back.”
This is the lede for a Boston Globe story about Palin's book tour and Going Rogue:
Sarah Palin was ridiculed as the Republican vice presidential nominee, pilloried after she quit in the middle of her term as Alaska governor, and has been tabloid fodder because of her daughter, a single teenage mom, and her former beau.
I smell desperation. I smell fear. They are clearly trying to cram every perceived negative about Palin into every single story about her. In this one they put it in the lede, so anyone reading the headlines for the day would see it even if they didn't click on the actual story. What desperation. They don't realize that they're just beating the same drum and no one is listening anymore. They're trying to create this false persona for her as the idiot, bimbo, low class failed governor but it's clear that no one is buying it. They repeat the lies so much that now everyone just rolls their eyes and moves on. They don't realize that Palin supporters are actually laughing at their desperation.
The Left and the corrupt media are literally foaming at the mouth about Palin's popularity. Palin supporters are eating up everything Palin; we can't get enough of her - any interview, facebook posting, tweet, anything - we are following, reading and watching with interest. The corrupt media has no sway whatsoever.
Nervous and curious McCain-Palin staffers have been buzzing for weeks with speculation about what Sarah Palin has chosen to include in “Going Rogue.”
Books have begun being shipped out in advance of the November 17th release date. Last week, some of Palin's associates received copies.
Based on discussions with various sources who have seen or been briefed on the book's contents, here's what you can expect from “Going Rogue”:
* just five chapters—but they are very, very long.
* some score settling with McCain aides she believes ill-served her (names will be named).
* a hearty bashing of the national media.
* an account of how her upbringing shaped her maverick sensibilities.
* a testimonial to the importance of faith in her life.
* a warm and personal tone, written in Palin's own voice, despite the involvement of a collaborator.
Two things not in the book:
* Don't look for hefty policy prescriptions.
* Once source who has seen “Going Rogue” says it does not include an index. That would give Palin a subtle revenge on the party's Washington establishment, whose members tend to flip to the back pages and scan for their own names. If they want to know what Sarah Palin has to say about them, they will have to buy the book—and read the whole thing.
In most of our cities and towns, you’ll see memorials to brave Americans – some in uniforms of wars from long ago – who defended freedom. If you look down at their inscriptions, you’ll see that they were dedicated by the mothers, fathers, wives and orphans of the veterans who gave all for their country. In distant lands across the globe, you’ll find silent fields of white markers with the names of Americans who never came home, but who showed their dedication to their country by where they died. Today we honor those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as those who served and came home forever changed by the battlefield.
Remember all the veterans who fought and sacrificed for our freedom today, and then please take the time to thank our brave men and women currently serving in uniform. We owe them so much.
I've felt burned out these past few days listening to the corrupt media and people in everyday life trying to justify what happened in Ft. Hood. The secondary PTSD, being "mentally unstable," that he "snapped" and every single reason under the sun no matter how outrageous except for the obvious one. No one is saying this is an act of terrorism and I'm sick with the fact that they're actually trying to paint him as the victim!
I'm not just burned out, but completely wiped out and emotionally drained. I am so outraged that this happened. I keep thinking about my loved ones who served in the military - what if this happened to them? Not to mention Track Palin, Sarah's son. This is beyond scary to me. I'm just so furious that this happened on our soil, in the confines of our own military base. I get tears in my eyes thinking about it. People, soldiers, were murdered. We can talk about motives and reasons and justifications all day long but at the end of the day those people are still gone. It just hurts.
I know there's a lot going on today but I wanted to pass this along. I read this article at The Atlantic about the Ft. Hood shooter by Jeffrey Goldberg. In his article he describes the opinions of his collegues regarding the Nidal Malik Hasan, and I cringed when I read these lines:
But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims.
Elite opinion makersdo not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism.
It is not enough for conservatives simply to be intelligent or sophisticated. They have to project these qualities, conspicuously and convincingly, in order to get pastthe visceral prejudices of elite opinion-makers, who generally regard conservative ideas as some combination of boobish, evil, backward, boring, dangerous, and simplistic.
The Atlantic and National Review are examples of the elite establishment of the Republican party. It's not surprising to me that they use the same language to describe what they aspire to be - elite opinion makers. They simply cannot get passed their prejudices of the common American citizen. They strive for a leader to tell them what to do and how to think. Even an assessment of Hasan's character leads to a discussion on what the "elite opinion makers" need to do and say instead of discussing the monster that he is.
I say, speak from your heart and don't try to gain the elite's approval. That's why Palin has been so successful and why The Atlantic and NRO have relegated themselves into niche markets.
So much happened these past few days. Palin spoke at the Wisconsin Right to Life event, the Healthcare bill passed the House, Palin wrote two more notes on Facebook. There's so much coupled with how I feel about Ft. Hood that my head is spinning. I'll try to keep my head above water from now on while Palin is soon approaching her book tour. Thanks for your patience!
Todd and I would like to offer our condolences to the families of the victims of the tragic shooting today at Ft. Hood. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them.
This talking point is everywhere. The Nov 3rd elections weren't a demonstration of Americans being fed up with the ultra left - no way - despite the fact that it was a 12-14 point swing to Republicans. The real thing we can all take home from the election results is that because Palin endorsed Hoffman the conservative over Dede Scozz the "Republican," Republicans are in a CIVIL WAR.
The specific words "civil war" have been used in every article, headline and interview. This must be what they were told to say to spin the results in their favor, despite the fact that it was a disaster of epic proportions for them and Obama's endorsements.
The fact that they're focusing on what Palin did just shows how incredibly nervous they are about her influence. They're trying to deflect away from how dangerously close they are to a 2010 catastrophe and The Won not getting re-elected in 2012.
Actually it seems to me that Democrats are in a "civil war" with their factions of ultra left, moderate left, and their threatening to purge anyone who doesn't vote for Obamacare. So yeah, if anyone is in a civil war it's them - but of course they deflect. Typical.
It's a shame NY23 didn't turn out the way we wanted. But a lot of good things came out of it. We showed the Republican party that we will not stand for RINOs. We will not elect someone just because they have an (R) next to their name. A third party candidate can gain enough popularity to be viable since this was a very close election. I imagine a lot of the Republican elite establishment are saying "I told you so" right now, but I'll say the same thing I've always said which is, what's the point of winning an election if you've sacrificed your principles to get there? Electing Dede Scozz would have been no different than electing the Democrat (can't even remember his name) so what would be the point in even electing her? She wouldn't have voted conservative or even right-of-center.
Palin being the first high-profile conservative to endorse Hoffman gave others enough courage to stand behind him as well. Of course, being the first to endorse showed that Palin isn't apologetic about her conservatism and it showed she's a trailblazer and a leader who's not afraid to stand up for what she believes in. Everyone who followed her was just that - a follower.
We learned where Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney stand - they both failed to formally endorse Hoffman. We learned how off-the-rails Newt Gingrich has become. We learned that Tim Pawlenty is weak and uninformed. We learned that the Republican party will stop funding RINOs if we insist on it. So a lot of good things came from this election even though our candidate lost.
Most of all, Palin is the one who stood her ground throughout and put her money where her mouth is. I really applaud her for trying to get a third-party conservative elected. She didn't lose anything by endorsing Hoffman.
Independent voters are moving strongly to Republican candidates in the New Jersey and Virginia governors races, an ominous sign for Democrats whose gains in 2006 and 2008 were built on heavy support from unaligned voters.
In Liberal Fantasy Land, "Independents" are the magical voters who are above party affiliation. They are the ultimate Prize and must be won at all costs. They are the Key to winning any election and both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans) need to change their party to fit the "Independents." Since they don't have political views, it's hard find out exactly how the party needs to change, but you still need to do it anyway.
The idea that Independents are "moving strongly to Republican candidates" is false. Today's elections were all about conservatives sending a message. They came out in droves and won Virginia. And while NJ and NY23 are still too close to call, it's very likely the Right will win there, too. Since the epic failure of the 2008 election, conservatives have been organizing like never before. The Tea Party movement happened and is still going strong. Palin's endorsement of Doug Hoffman started a conservative tidal wave of support. Voters are starting now: voting out big government, RINOs and higher taxes - and voting in conservatives, individual freedom and getting the government off our backs.
The Left's new talking point about the elections today is how the results don't matter. They're trying to downplay how big this day was because they don't want to admit that the majority of Americans are fed up. Conservatives used today as a 2010 preview and the Left is waking up to the fact that they could lose their jobs next year.
Chris Cillizza is (still) trying to push the meme that "Independents" matter. He can't see that the sleeping giant (conservatives) woke up, because in his mind the majority of Americans are not conservative. So he falls back on "Independents" being the magical entity that decides elections. In doing so he downplays the conservative movement. Instead of saying that conservatives are unifying and getting stronger and sending a message, he goes straight to the thing he knows best and what makes sense in his mind - Independents. What else would you expect from the corrupt media?
I am very, very excited about the upcoming road trip for my book. It will be an honor to meet as many of you as possible!
“Going Rogue” publisher HarperCollins is working hard to schedule book signings across the nation, and we’ll be announcing the locations in the next day or two. I’ve decided to travel to cities outside of the typical book tour venues, and I hope to cover as much of the country as I can.
We’re in the process of arranging interviews with local and national media. An interview with Oprah Winfrey is already scheduled, and I’m also hoping to have the opportunity to talk with Bill O’Reilly, Barbara Walters, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, and others, including local Alaska personalities Bob & Mark and Eddie Burke. (Variety is the spice of life!)
Can’t wait to hit the road. Can’t wait to see you!
Also, an unconfirmed event has popped up that says Palin will give a speech at the Salina Area Chamber of Commerce Banquet in Kansas, February 5, 2010. I'll try to find out more information.
I know that anyone reading this blog will probably already know that today is election day for several local races and propositions, but just in case - today is the day to vote! These local elections are crucial for most of us. I'll also keep my eyes NY23 and the governor elections in NJ and VA. Our time to vote conservatives in and kick RINOs out is now. Please vote!
Palin's endorsement of conservative Doug Hoffman in NY23 proved to be too much for "Republican" Dede Scozzafava as she has since suspended her campaign and now...shockingly...endorses the Democrat candidate on her way out!
I can't emphasize again how critical this race is, how undeniably gamechanging it is for the GOP. With this race, Newt Gingrich destroyed his chances of running for President and Palin just boosted hers. RINOs like Tim Pawlenty showed their true colors while Mitt Romney sat on the sidelines and did nothing. This is exactly what the future will look like, this little congressional race is proving to change the course of history. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, I really do believe it.
It is being reported today that Dede Scozzafava is endorsing Democrat Bill Owens. In one fell swoop she proved her detractors right. Her actions also speak to the Republicans that made excuses for her such as Newt Gingrich; they were dead wrong. When Dede withdrew from the race on Saturday, many (including me) thought she was doing the right thing for Northern New York, and the Republican Party. Instead we have been presented with the quintessential example of what the label RINO means.
"Scozzafava dropped out after Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman experienced a late-in-the-game surge. The move was expected to consolidate GOP voters behind Hoffman on Tuesday.
But on Sunday, Scozzafava backed Democrat Bill Owens -- the announcement was made in a statement sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
When the DNC is releasing statements for the former GOP candidate you know something is very wrong. This is a wake up call for the leaders of the Grand Old Party. The party got its hat handed to it in the last election by running the most "moderate" candidate in decades why do they continue in the same vein that didn't work last time?
Listening to voters helped create the contract with America which propelled the GOP into the House and Senate in 1994. It was ignoring those principals that led to the GOP's decline. Instead of listening to Washington insiders the GOP would do better if it listened to the people.
